DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 15, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claim 2-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
7. Regarding claim 2, Regarding claim 2, the claim recites an apparatus. The apparatus itself falls within the statutory category of a machine, see MPEP 2106.03(I). This section goes on to define a machine as (with emphasis added), “A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. "Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).” The claimed apparatus is devoid of any particular parts and instead only recites functions, generally tied to a UE. It is unclear whether the UE is all, part, or none of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear, as none of the functions are tied to any particular part of the apparatus. A reader is bereft of further detail regarding the structure/parts that accompany an eligible machine.
8. Regarding claims 3-16 is/are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Persson et al. (WO 2023152708 A1), hereinafter Persson et al...
12. Regarding claim 1, A method, comprising: at a user equipment in wireless communication with a serving cell in a wireless network, (“Thus, cell/beam coverage sweeps the earth as the satellite moves. In that case, the spotbeam, which is serving the UE, may switch every few seconds” [Pg. 10 Lines 11-12]). The spotbeam is a serving cell that serves the UE, teaching wireless communication between the cell and UE in a wireless network.
In further, the user equipment being configured with one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers, (“CHO enables the network to transmit the handover command to the UE at an early stage when the quality of the radio link is still good, i.e. before the UE is getting close to the cell edge” [Pg. 6 Lines 1-3]). The CHO (e.g. conditional handover) enables the network to transmit the handover to the UE.
Following up with, (“In a particular embodiment, the plurality of conditions comprises: a time-based trigger condition associated with the at least one time window during which the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell can be performed” [Pg. 43 Lines 17-19]). A time-based trigger condition is associated with at least one time window during the conditional handover (e.g. CHO), teaching where the UE is configured with one or more time-based event triggers.
In further, receiving by the user equipment indication that the serving cell will be turning off, (“The terms “remaining serving time”, “remaining service time” and “remaining time to serve” all refer to the remaining time a cell will keep providing coverage in the present area. In 3GPP documents, it is also referred to as “Tservice”, “tservice”, “t-Service” or “t-Service-rl7”. An alternative indication of when the cell will stop serving the area is the “serving cell stop time” [Pg. 17 Lines 5-8]). The remaining time to serve is referred to as “Tservice”, “tservice”, “t-Service” or “t-Service-rl7” and an alternative indication is “serving cell stop time”.
Following up with, (“the UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell” [Pg. 23 Lines 33-44 and Pg. 24 Lines 1]). The UE has information obtained of the serving cell stop time that is broadcasted in the serving cell. Obtaining the information through the broadcast in the serving cell is a form of receiving information.
In further, determining, by the user equipment, relative timing of the one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers and timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, (“A new time-based trigger condition, defining a time period, or a time window, when the UE may execute CHO to a candidate target cell” [Pg. 8 Lines 22-23]). The time period or time window is a relative time when the UE may execute a CHO. The “time-based trigger condition” teaches one or more time-based conditional handover (e.g. CHO) event triggers.
Following up with, (“The terms “remaining serving time”, “remaining service time” and “remaining time to serve” all refer to the remaining time a cell will keep providing coverage in the present area. In 3GPP documents, it is also referred to as “Tservice”, “tservice”, “t-Service” or “t-Service-rl7”. An alternative indication of when the cell will stop serving the area is the “serving cell stop time” [Pg. 17 Lines 5-8]). The remaining time to serve is referred to as “Tservice”, “tservice”, “t-Service” or “t-Service-rl7” and an alternative indication is “serving cell stop time”.
Following up with, (“the UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell [Pg. 23 Lines 33-44 and Pg. 24 Lines 1]”). The UE has information obtained of the serving cell stop time that is broadcasted in the serving cell. Obtaining the information through the broadcast in the serving cell is a form of receiving information.
In further, determining, by the user equipment, whether the relative timing meets one or more criteria, (“A new time-based trigger condition, defining a time period, or a time window, when the UE may execute CHO to a candidate target cell” [pg. 8 lines 22-23]). The time period or time window is a relative time. Those time period/window are the conditions for the UE to execute a CHO, indicates meeting one or more criteria.
In further, and modifying, by the user equipment based on the relative timing meeting the one or more criteria, mobility procedures for the user equipment that is in a connected state, (“In the connected state, mobility is controlled by the network to ensure connectivity is retained to the UE with no interruption or noticeable degradation of the provided service as the UE moves between the cells within the network. As requested by the network, the UE is required to search and perform measurements on neighbor cells both on the current carrier frequency (intra-frequency) as well as on other carrier frequencies (interfrequency). The UE does not take any autonomous decisions with respect to when to trigger a handover to a neighbor cell (except to some extent when the UE is configured for Conditional Handover as discussed in more detail below)” [Pg. 3 Lines 14-21]). The UE is in a connected state while moving between cells within the network. The UE is configured for conditional handover (e.g. CHO).
Following up with, (“A new time-based trigger condition, defining a time period, or a time window, when the UE may execute CHO to a candidate target cell” [pg. 8 lines 22-23]). The time period/window is one or more time-based conditions which is a form of a criteria and a relative time, for the UE to execute a CHO (conditional handover). The UE execute CHO to a candidate target cell is a form of modifying the UE.
13. Regarding claim 2, An apparatus, comprising means for performing: at a user equipment in wireless communication with a serving cell in a wireless network, (“Thus, cell/beam coverage sweeps the earth as the satellite moves. In that case, the spotbeam, which is serving the UE, may switch every few seconds” [Pg. 10 Lines 11-12]). The apparatus is a UE. The spotbeam is a serving cell that serves the UE, teaching wireless communication between the cell and UE in a wireless network.
In further, the user equipment being configured with one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers, (“CHO enables the network to transmit the handover command to the UE at an early stage when the quality of the radio link is still good, i.e. before the UE is getting close to the cell edge” [Pg. 6 Lines 1-3]). The CHO (e.g. conditional handover) enables the network to transmit the handover to the UE.
Following up with, (“In a particular embodiment, the plurality of conditions comprises: a time-based trigger condition associated with the at least one time window during which the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell can be performed” [Pg. 43 Lines 17-19]). Teaches one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers.
In further, receiving by the user equipment indication that the serving cell will be turning off, (“The terms “remaining serving time”, “remaining service time” and “remaining time to serve” all refer to the remaining time a cell will keep providing coverage in the present area. In 3GPP documents, it is also referred to as “Tservice”, “tservice”, “t-Service” or “t-Service-rl7”. An alternative indication of when the cell will stop serving the area is the “serving cell stop time” [Pg. 17 Lines 5-8]). The remaining time to serve is referred to as “Tservice” and an alternative indication is “serving cell stop time”, teaching the serving cell will be turning off.
Following up with, (“the UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell” [Pg. 23 Lines 33-34 and Pg. 24 Lines 1]). Teaches, receiving by the UE.
In further, determining, by the user equipment, relative timing of the one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers and timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, (“A new time-based trigger condition, defining a time period, or a time window, when the UE may execute CHO to a candidate target cell” [Pg. 8 Lines 22-23]). The time period or time window is a relative time when the UE may execute a CHO. The “time-based trigger condition” teaches one or more time-based conditional handover (e.g. CHO) event triggers.
Following up with, (“The terms “remaining serving time”, “remaining service time” and “remaining time to serve” all refer to the remaining time a cell will keep providing coverage in the present area. In 3GPP documents, it is also referred to as “Tservice”, “tservice”, “t-Service” or “t-Service-rl7”. An alternative indication of when the cell will stop serving the area is the “serving cell stop time” [Pg. 17 Lines 5-8]). Teaches a “serving cell stop time”, a form of the serving cell turning off.
Following up with, (“the UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell” [Pg. 23 Lines 33-44 and Pg. 24 Lines 1]). The UE has information obtained of the serving cell stop time.
In further, determining, by the user equipment, whether the relative timing meets one or more criteria, (“A new time-based trigger condition, defining a time period, or a time window, when the UE may execute CHO to a candidate target cell.” [Pg. 8 lines 22-23]). The time period or time window is a relative time. Those time period/window are the conditions for the UE to execute a CHO, indicates meeting one or more criteria.
In further, and modifying, by the user equipment based on the relative timing meeting the one or more criteria, mobility procedures for the user equipment that is in a connected state, (“In the connected state, mobility is controlled by the network to ensure connectivity is retained to the UE with no interruption or noticeable degradation of the provided service as the UE moves between the cells within the network. As requested by the network, the UE is required to search and perform measurements on neighbor cells both on the current carrier frequency (intra-frequency) as well as on other carrier frequencies (interfrequency). The UE does not take any autonomous decisions with respect to when to trigger a handover to a neighbor cell (except to some extent when the UE is configured for Conditional Handover as discussed in more detail below)” [Pg. 3 Lines 14-21]). The UE is in a connected state while moving between cells within the network known as conditional handover (e.g. CHO). Teaching a modification by the UE.
Following up with, (“A new time-based trigger condition, defining a time period, or a time window, when the UE may execute CHO to a candidate target cell” [pg. 8 lines 22-23]). The time period/window teaches one or more time-based conditions, a criteria, and a relative time for the UE to execute a CHO (conditional handover).
14. Regarding claim 3, The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein: the one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers at least define a time window within which the handover from the serving cell to a target cell is allowed to occur; and the determining whether the relative timing meets one or more criteria determines the relative timing meets the one or more criteria because a starting time of the time window is later than the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, (“CHO enables the network to transmit the handover command to the UE at an early stage when the quality of the radio link is still good, i.e. before the UE is getting close to the cell edge. The network configures the UE with one or more candidate target cells and with a CHO specific execution condition for each target cell” [Pg. 6 Lines 1-4] … “the UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell [Pg. 23 Lines 33-34 and Pg. 24 Lines 1]”). The UE knows the serving cell stop time and transmit the handover command for the CHO specific execution before the UE is getting close to the cell edge (e.g. serving cell stop time). Teaching a one or more time-based conditional handover (e.g. CHO).
Following up with, (“A new time-based trigger condition, defining a time period, or a time window, when the UE may execute CHO to a candidate target cell” [Pg. 8 Lines 22-23]). A time is defined for the UE to execute a CHO to a target cell. The time period/window is a relative time and a criteria. The time period/window for the UE to execute a CHO is later than the indication of the serving cell turning off (e.g. serving cell stop time) a message broadcasted by the serving cell, before the UE is getting close to the cell edge.
15. Regarding claim 4, The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein: the one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers at least define a time window within which the handover from the serving cell to a target cell is allowed to occur; and the determining whether the relative timing meets one or more criteria determines the relative timing meets the one or more criteria because a starting time of the time window is earlier than the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, and an ending time of the time window is later than the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, (“CHO enables the network to transmit the handover command to the UE at an early stage when the quality of the radio link is still good, i.e. before the UE is getting close to the cell edge. The network configures the UE with one or more candidate target cells and with a CHO specific execution condition for each target cell” [Pg. 6 Lines 1-4] … “the UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell [Pg. 23 Lines 33-44 and Pg. 24 Lines 1]”). The UE knows the serving cell stop time and transmit the handover command for the CHO specific execution before the UE is getting close to the cell edge (e.g. serving cell stop time). Teaching a one or more time-based conditional handover (e.g. CHO).
Following up with, (“A new time-based trigger condition, defining a time period, or a time window, when the UE may execute CHO to a candidate target cell” [Pg. 8 Lines 22-23]). A time period/window teaches a relative time and a criteria for the UE to execute a CHO to a target cell. The handover (e.g. CHO) is occurring before the UE is getting close to the cell edge indicating that the starting time period/window is earlier than the timing based on the serving cell turning off.
Following up with, (“CHO execution within the time window (i.e. between T1 and T2) [Pg. 16 Lines 23]” … “The time windows configured to the UE for each candidate target cell may be fully overlapping in time, party overlapping in time or fully separated in time. In a particular embodiment, the UE stops evaluating any other candidate target cell(s) when a CHO execution condition is fulfilled within the time window for one of the candidate target cells.” [Pg. 19 Lines 19-22] … “the UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell” [Pg. 23 Lines 33-44 and Pg. 24 Lines 1]). The UE knows serving cell stop time. The time window for the UE of each candidate target cell may be fully overlapping, partly overlapping, or fully separated in time, teaching that the time window of candidate target cell may overlap, teaching the ending time window (T2) is later than the time based on the indication of the serving cell turning off.
16. Regarding claim 9, the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers comprise a starting time of the time window and duration of the time window, (“the UE may only perform CHO to the candidate target cell in the time window defined by Tl and T2 if the signal strength/quality based event is fulfilled within this time frame” [Pg. 9 Lines 16-17]). The time window defined by T1 and T2 teaches the starting time window and duration of the time window.
17. Regarding claim 10, the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers have corresponding conditional radio triggers used for conditional handover, and wherein the modifying the mobility procedures for the user equipment that is in a connected state comprises relaxing radio conditions from an initial condition to a relaxed condition for conditional radio triggers used after the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off has occurred, (“Connected state mobility is also known as handover” [Pg. 3 Lines 24] …“CHO enables the network to transmit the handover command to the UE at an early stage when the quality of the radio link is still good, i.e. before the UE is getting close to the cell edge” [Pg. 6 Lines 1-3] … “UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell [Pg. 23 Lines 33-34 and Pg. 24 Lines 1] … “As another example, certain embodiments may provide a technical advantage of enabling the source node to know when a time-based CHO execution condition has not been fulfilled within the time window for a candidate target cell. Thus, the network may be informed if the UE did not perform CHO to the candidate target cell. By receiving this information, the source node may trigger the UE to perform a regular (non-CHO) handover to a neighbor cell” [Pg. 12 Lines 18-22] … “). The UE obtains the serving cell stop time through the broadcast in the serving cell and transmit the handover of the UE when the quality of the radio link is still good, teaching the indication of the serving cell turning off comes before the CHO. When the CHO execution has not been fulfilled in the time window, the source node may trigger the UE to perform a regular non-CHO handover, teaching a form of relaxing radio conditions from an initial condition.
18. Regarding claim 11, the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the relaxing radio conditions comprise one of the following: a first conditional handover condition is relaxed so that a neighbor cell is allowed to become an offset better in radio conditions than the serving cell in order to meet the first conditional handover condition; a second conditional handover condition is relaxed so that a neighbor cell is allowed to become better in radio conditions than a threshold in order to meet the second conditional handover condition; a third conditional handover condition is relaxed so that the serving cell is allowed to become worse than a first threshold and a neighbor cell is allowed to become better than a second threshold in order to meet the third conditional handover condition; or dropping or shortening requirements related to time-to-trigger of a mobility event; or dropping or reducing requirements related to a radio signal power level, (“As another example, certain embodiments may provide a technical advantage of enabling the source node to know when a time based CHO execution condition has not been fulfilled within the time window for a candidate target cell. Thus, the network may be informed if the UE did not perform CHO to the candidate target cell. By receiving this information, the source node may trigger the UE to perform a regular (non-CHO) handover to a neighbor cell” [Pg. 12 Lines 18-22] … “which the CHO execution conditions are fulfilled and then select and perform CHO to the candidate target cell with the best signal strength/signal quality or the candidate target cell with the longest remaining serving time” [Pg. 19 Lines 34 and Pg. 20 Lines 1-2]). The CHO would select the target cell with the best signal or longest remaining serving time. In the case that the CHO fails the UE will perform a non-CHO to a neighbor cell, teaching dropping or shortening requirements related to time-to-trigger of a mobility event.
19. Regarding claim 12, The apparatus according claim 2, wherein the modifying the mobility procedures for the user equipment that is in a connected state comprises one or more of the following: starting a radio link failure timer without waiting for a trigger, indicating a number of times an out-of-synchronization indication has been received, to meet a maximum configured value; starting a connection recover timer and skipping actions related to radio link failure; skipping sending of a radio link failure report; excluding one or more cells associated to a current satellite from measurements for cell selection for a conditional handover; or modifying one or more conditional handover configurations used for the conditional handover, (“When the source node receives the information that the CHO execution condition was not fulfilled for a given candidate target cell such as, for example, in a quasi -earth-fixed cell scenario, the source node may use this information to trigger the UE to perform a regular (non-CHO) handover to the new cell/satellite taking over the cell coverage area from the current serving (source) cell (or to another suitable target cell if available). In this manner, a potential radio link failure in the source cell is avoided” [Pg 22 Lines 19-24]). Performing a non-CHO removes the occasion of a radio link failure, teaching skipping sending of a radio link failure report.
20. Regarding claim 13, the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the modifying the mobility procedures for the user equipment that is in a connected state is performed in order to delay detection of a possible radio link failure until a conditional handover can be considered according to the one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers, (“Connected state mobility is also known as handover. During the handover, the UE is moved from a source node using a source cell connection to a target node using a target cell connection” [Pg. 3 Lines 24-25]). The handover teaches modifying the mobility procedures for the user equipment that is in a connected state.
Following up with, (“if the handover attempt fails due to, for example, a radio link failure or an expiration of timer T304” [Pg. 7 Lines 22-23] … “Step 6. Upon reception of the handover command, the UE releases the connection to the old (source) cell, starts the handover supervision timer T304, and starts to synchronize to the new (target) cell. Steps 7-9. The source gNB stops scheduling any further downlink (DL) user data to the UE and sends the XnAP SN STATUS TRANSFER message to the target gNB, indicating the latest Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) Sequence Number (SN) transmitter and receiver status. The source gNB now also starts to forward DL user data received from the Core Network to the target gNB, which buffers this data for now. Step 10. Once the UE has completed the random access procedure in the target cell, the UE stops the T304 timer and sends the handover complete message to the target gNB” [Pg. 5 Step 6-10] … “a radio link failure or an expiration of timer T304, the UE will typically perform a cell selection and continue with a re-establishment procedure. But when a CHO execution attempt fails and the selected cell is associated to a candidate target cell included in the CHO configuration, the UE will instead attempt a CHO execution to the selected target cell” [Pg. 7 Lines 22-26]). The T304 timer stopping teaches delaying the detection of a possible radio link failure until a conditional handover can be considered according to the one or more time-based conditional handover event triggers.
21. Regarding claim 14, The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the apparatus is performed in one of a terrestrial network or a non- terrestrial network, (“With the time-based CHO trigger condition introduced for NTN in 3GPP Release 17, each candidate target cell is configured with a time window in which the UE is allowed to perform CHO to the candidate target cell” [Pg. 18 Lines 7-9]). The apparatus is a UE. The UE is performing a CHO in a NTN known as a non-terrestrial network.
22. Regarding claim 15, The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein at least one time-based conditional handover event trigger is defined as a distance-based condition to the serving cell, to a neighbor cell, or to both the serving and neighbor cell that can be mapped by the user equipment to a point in time by using orbital information of a moving satellite, movement information of the user equipment, or both the orbital information and the movement information, (“A new location-based trigger condition, defining a distance threshold from the UE to the source cell and to a candidate target cell, based on which the UE may trigger and execute CHO” [Pg. 8 Lines 24-26] … “if a time-based trigger condition and a location based trigger condition are configured to the UE, then all trigger conditions configured to the UE must be fulfilled simultaneously in order for the UE to execute the CHO” [Pg. 9 Lines 26-28]). The CHO is a time-based conditional handover that is defined by a location-based trigger condition that defines the distance threshold from the UE to the source cell (e.g. serving cell).
23. Regarding claim 16, the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein modifying the mobility procedures for the user equipment that is in the connected state comprises modifying one or more of the following: radio link failure procedures; re-establishment procedures; or handover configuration, (“In a connected state, which is referred to in the 3GPP specifications as the RRC CONNECTED state” [Pg. 3 Lines 12-13] “Connected state mobility is also known as handover. During the handover, the UE is moved from a source node using a source cell connection to a target node using a target cell connection” [Pg. 3 Lines 24-25] … “If the triggered CHO execution fails, the UE may initiate connection re-establishment (in accordance with the procedures specified in 3GPP Release 16). In a variant of this embodiment, if the triggered CHO execution fails, the UE may only initiate connection re-establishment (in accordance with the procedures specified in 3GPP Release 16) to the associated candidate target cell if the time represented by T2 has not passed yet” [Pg. 19 Lines 24-29]). The apparatus is a UE. The UE initiating connection re-establishment is a mobility procedure. A UE re-establishing connection with the candidate target cell within T2 is a connected state mobility known as a handover.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
24. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
25. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
26. Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al. (WO 2023152708 A1), in view of Yiu et al. (WO 2017164908 A1).
8. Regarding claim 5, Persson et al. teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein modifying the mobility procedures for the user equipment that is in a connected state, (“Connected state mobility is also known as handover” [Pg. 3 Lines 24] … “Step 5. The source gNB triggers the handover by sending the handover command (received from the target gNB in the previous step) to the UE” [Pg. 5 Step 5] … “Step 6. Upon reception of the handover command, the UE releases the connection to the old (source) cell, starts the handover supervision timer T304, and starts to synchronize to the new (target) cell” [Pg. 5 Step 6]). The apparatus (e.g. UE) receives a handover command and the UE releases the connection to the old cell and starts synchronizing to the new cell (e.g. CHO), teaching modifying the mobility procedure the UE in a connected state.
Although Persson et al. teaches the apparatus (e.g. UE) according to claim 3, wherein modifying the mobility procedures for the user equipment that is in a connected state, Persson et al. does not explicitly teach, adding a waiting time to when a radio link failure procedure for detection of a radio link failure is to be started so a start of the radio link failure procedure is delayed at least by the waiting time.
In the same field of endeavor of adding a waiting time to when a radio link failure procedure for detection of a radio link failure is to be started so a start of the radio link failure procedure is delayed at least by the waiting time, Yiu et al. teaches, (“In embodiments, the timer may be referred to as an RLF _retx _timer. In embodiments, the timer value may be configured by the eNodeB or fixed in a specification, for example, the 3GPP specification for 5G. In embodiments, upon timer expiration, the UE may declare RLF and may perform RLF recovery procedures following the legacy specification” [Pg. 7 Lines 3-7]). The RLF_retx_timer is a radio link failure timer. The expiration of the timer teaches a time waited to declare a RLF and perform RLF recovery procedure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Persson et al. to include an RLF_retx timer to declare RLF and perform RLF recovery procedure taught by Yiu et al... The suggestion/motivation to implement a wait timer that declares the RLF to prevent “significant degradation in file transfer performance in high- bandwidth data communication, when the high-bandwidth data communication link is subjected to lengthy RLF recovery procedures that may not be needed” [Pg. 5 Lines 25-27].
27. Regarding claim 6, Persson et al. teaches the ending time of the time window is later than the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, (“CHO execution within the time window (i.e. between T1 and T2) [Pg. 16 Lines 23]” … “The time windows configured to the UE for each candidate target cell may be fully overlapping in time, party overlapping in time or fully separated in time. In a particular embodiment, the UE stops evaluating any other candidate target cell(s) when a CHO execution condition is fulfilled within the time window for one of the candidate target cells.” [Pg. 19 Lines 19-22] … “the UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell” [Pg. 23 Lines 33-34 and Pg. 24 Lines 1]). The CHO is fulfilled within the time window T1 and T2, teaching the ending time window is later than the time of the indication of the serving cell turning off.
Although Persson et al. teaches the ending time of the time window is later than the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, Persson et al. does not explicitly teach, the waiting time.
In the same field of endeavor of the waiting time, Yiu et al. teaches, (“In embodiments, the timer may be referred to as an RLF _retx _timer. In embodiments, the timer value may be configured by the eNodeB or fixed in a specification, for example, the 3GPP specification for 5G. In embodiments, upon timer expiration, the UE may declare RLF and may perform RLF recovery procedures following the legacy specification” [Pg. 7 Lines 3-7]). The expiration of the timer is the amount of time that is waited to declare a RLF and perform RLF recovery procedure. Thus teaching, a waiting time RLF_rtx_timer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Persson et al. to include the RLF_rtx_timer as taught by Yiu et al... The suggestion/motivation to do so would prove the waiting time (e.g. RLF_rtx_timer) is different to the ending time of the time window is later than the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off (e.g. T1 and T2).
28. Regarding claim 7, Persson et al. teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, the expiration of which indicates a radio link failure, (“if the handover attempt fails due to, for example, a radio link failure or an expiration of timer T304” [Pg. 7 Lines 22-23]). Teaches the expiration time T304 indicates a radio link failure.
Although Persson et al. teaches apparatus according to claim 5, the expiration of which indicates a radio link failure, Persson et al. does not explicitly teach, wherein the waiting time comprises a time added to a start of a timer, the expiration of which indicates a radio link failure, or a time added to actions related to a radio link failure declaration, after the timer is expired.
In the same field of endeavor of the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the waiting time comprises a time added to a start of a timer, the expiration of which indicates a radio link failure, or a time added to actions related to a radio link failure declaration, after the timer is expired, Yiu et al. teaches, (“In embodiments, the timer may be referred to as an RLF retx timer. In embodiments, the timer value may be configured by the eNodeB or fixed in a specification, for example, the 3GPP specification for 5G. In embodiments, upon timer expiration, the UE may declare RLF and may perform RLF recovery procedures following the legacy specification” [Pg. 7 Lines 3-7]). The RLF_retx_timer is a waiting time that declares RLF (e.g. indicates radio link failure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Persson et al. to include the waiting time RLF_retx_timer to declare RLF (e.g. indicating radio link failure) as taught by Yiu et al... The suggestion/motivation to implement a wait timer that declares the RLF to prevent “significant degradation in file transfer performance in high- bandwidth data communication, when the high-bandwidth data communication link is subjected to lengthy RLF recovery procedures that may not be needed” [Pg. 5 Lines 25-27].
29. Regarding claim 8, Persson et al. teaches the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, (“the UE knows from the type of serving cell or from information obtained in the serving cell such as, for example, from the “serving cell stop time” broadcasted in the serving cell” [Pg. 23 Lines 33-44 and Pg. 24 Lines 1]). The serving cell stop time is an indication of the serving cell turning off.
Although Persson et al. teaches the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, Persson et al. does not explicitly teach, wherein the waiting time is a point in time that is calculated from a starting time of the time window, an ending time of the time window, or the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, or is a time configured by the network or hard- coded.
In the same field of endeavor wherein the waiting time is a point in time that is calculated from a starting time of the time window, an ending time of the time window, or the timing based on the indication of the serving cell turning off, or is a time configured by the network or hard- coded, Yiu et al. teaches, (“In embodiments, the timer may be referred to as an RLF _retx _timer. In embodiments, the timer value may be configured by the eNodeB or fixed in a specification, for example, the 3GPP specification for 5G. In embodiments, upon timer
expiration, the UE may declare RLF and may perform RLF recovery procedures following
the legacy specification” [Pg. 7 Lines 3-7]). The RLF_retx_timer is a waiting time to declare RLF and perform RLF recovery procedures. The timer value (e.g. RLF_retx_timer) is configured by eNodeB or fixed in a specification teaching time configured by the network or hard-coded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Persson et al. to include a timer RLF_retx_timer that is configured by the eNodeB or fixed in a specification as taught by Yiu et al... The suggestion/motivation to implement a wait timer that is configured by the network or hard-coded to configure a time for (“the UE may declare RLF and may perform RLF recovery procedures following the legacy specification” [Pg. 7 Lines 6-7]).
Conclusion
30. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
31. The relevance of this prior art, “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING AND SUPPORTING A DYNAMIC CELL ON/OFF IN WIRELESS ACCESS SYSTEM” Document ID US 20140211763 A1; The invention discloses resolving the problem for efficiently managing the power of a serving cell. The invention comprises of adjusting a handover offset to the cell and taking into account the interference caused by the cell turning on or off.
32. The relevance of this prior art, “Methods And Apparatuses Relating To Wireless Communication” Document ID GB 2626980 A; The invention may detect a timer that causes the declaration of a radio link failure with the serving cell (e.g. T310). The timer of the T310 may be refrained from transmitting in a report due to the successful handover report.
33. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL THANH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri Flex 8:00am-5:00pm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL THANH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri Flex 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL THANH TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
February 6, 2026
/GARY MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465